Romney defines freedom selfishly

Mitt Romney’s definition of freedom is narrowly centered on freedom from government encroachment, says Elliot Spitzer in Slate. Totally absent is the fact that accomplishing grander objectives also requires common purpose and shared sacrifice, he says.

9 Responses

This should be no surprise to anyone (except for those asleep at the switch) that this corporate owned, enthusiastically willing, fully corporate vetted, Uber-rich wannabe, slash and burn (Bain Capital)capitalist, touts the corporate created and hyped line that government is the enemy to be hated, when they don’t fully control it, and to be fully used (even while destroying its credibility) to further the interests of wealth, when they do control it. His candidacy is the ultimate scam against the American people.

Let see if I understand the point: If I want to use my money for my purposes that is selfish. On the other hand if you wish the government to take my money for your purposes that is both noble and unselfish. I rest my case about the failure of the educational system.

Also a morality lecture from a man who caused great pain to the mother of his children, and given them a bad example about what to expect out of a husband is a tasteless joke.

Victor – If I were you, I would be more concerned about certain Frenchman who, when their society structured itself to serve only the few at the top, literally beheaded their self-serving elites. Our own history has shown us that a people can take only so much abuse before they rise up against oppression, and I can think of no oppression more pervasive than a wealth driven minority trying to kill the only institution we have, that gives a rat’s butt about the “We The People”, of constitutional fame, all to line their pockets and exercise complete dictatorial power. You will have to forgive us if we to not sign on to your narrow doctrinaire Ayn Rand created rationale for justifying elitist selfishness, as the greatest good, IT IS NOT!

iknowtruthismine: I do not see the connection between what I wrote and what you wrote. Bit let me help- you with Ayn Rand thoughts: If I’m in a room with nine other people and nine of us decide we want almost everything from the richest one, should that one just surrender it? If I’m in a country with 310 million people and 300 million decide they want almost everything from the richest 10 million, should they just surrender it? If I’m on a planet with 7 billion people and 6.5 billion decide they want almost everything from the richest .5 billion, should those .5 billion just surrender it? What’s different between these scenarios besides the numbers? Why do so many act as though the first an third scenarios are unjust, but the middle one is just?

Victor – If you are going to beat us continually and dogmatically with the Ayn Rand stick, and feel a need to explain what she really meant, then you are going to have to understand that many of us, in our impressionable youth, got our hands on “Atlas Shrugged”, when it was hot off the press (I suspect that that was anywhere between 20 and 40 years before you were born), and being sixteen years old, we were duly impressed enough to read every scrap of drivel she ever wrote (including her very bad play, “The Night of January 16th”). If you think that a political and social theorist, who has spent his last 50 years fending off assaults to their intelligence by each successive wave of impressionable youth to come along and share the “truth” that most of us saw through for the flawed, contrived, inflexible doctrinaire, justification for allowing people to steal from their fellow Human-beings, needs to be ‘schooled’ in something they have spent their entire life fighting against, then you are sadly mistaken. Blind dogma, that does not leave wiggle room for pragmatic concerns, justifies the worst aspects of “Social Darwinism”, and is dependent on a large portion of society living in subservience to those clever enough to gather more than their fair share (like the 1/79,000th who in our society own fully 1/2 of all wealth, because they constructed the mechanisms to steal it), will not encourage us to bat the same old worn, almost featherless, shuttle-cock over the net every time someone lobs it at us.